













o > 






'^'^^O^ 










.*' %-^^*/ v^-/ %'^-'y 




NATURALIZATION 



'AMERICAN COLONIES, 



WITH MORE PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO 
MASSACHUSETTS. 



A Paper kead befoke the Massachusetts Historical Society, at the 
July Meeting, 1859. 



BY JOSEPH %^ILLARD. 




BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON AND SON, 
22, School Street. 

1859. 



TEACTATE. 



The hostility of ancient nations to aliens, connected more 
or less closely with the sentiment of race and of patriotism, 
and made more intense by diversity of language, continued 
with few exceptions through the various periods of their his- 
tory, and passed into modern Europe in its several centuries, 
uninfluenced to any extent by the progress of civilization 
and refinement, and the precepts of Christianity. 

At the present day, though this hostility may be considered 
as at an end, a distinctive feeling between citizens of the 
same country and aliens continues, and will never be eradi- 
cated whi}e men are separated into distinct communities. 

In the following tractate, it is not proposed to discuss the 
doctrines embraced in the change or transfer of allegiance, 
or to consider any real or supposed modifications of what 
have been regarded as the legitimate results of those doc- 
trines, but, only as a matter pertaining to our own history, to 
give a summary of the English statutes touching naturaliza- 
tion, followed by references to some of the Colonial charters 
and laws, especially to the exercise of jurisdiction in the 
Province of Massachusetts Bay, and in the Commonwealth 
both before and after the adoption of the Constitution of the 
United States. 

In no country of Europe has the exclusion of foreigners 
been more strictly enforced than in England ; so that, until a 
recent period, no one could become a British subject except 



by a special Act of Parliament.* In addition to tlie reasons 
given above, the pride of the Anglo-Saxon race, which hardly 
permits an Englishman to look on his Continental neighbor as 
an equal, would lead him to regard with dread any encroach- 
ment upon a population that had become homogeneous in the 
progress of centuries, — a dread that would not be diminished 
by the narrow channel that divides him from other races. 

But, while she guarded the sea-girt isle with this extreme 
jealousy, she was, as will be seen in the context, more liberal 
towards her Colonies after they began to acquire assured 
strength ; that is to say, more liberal as regarded foreign 
Protestants, while wholly excluding the Roman Catholic 
from every privilege of a subject. 

The first relaxation of the ancient restriction took place 
in 1708, under statute 7 Anne, chap. 5, entitled " An act for 
NATURALIZING FOREIGN PROTESTANTS." The preamble states 
the plain proposition, that " the increase of a people is a 
means of advancing the wealth and strength of a nation ; " 
and adds, that " many strangers of the Protestant or Reformed 
religion, out of a due consideration of the happy constitution 
of the government of this realm, would be induced to trans- 
port themselves and their estates into this kingdom, if they 
might be made partakers of the advantages and privileges 
which the natural-born subjects thereof do enjoy." It is 
then enacted, that all persons taking the oaths, and making 



* By the statute of 7 and 8 Victoria, chap. 66, a resident alien subject of a friendly 
State, or one who shall hereafter come to reside in any part of the United Kingdom 
■with intent to settle therein, desirous of being naturalized, is required to set forth, in a 
memorial to one of the principal Secretaries of State, the facts concerning his age, 
profession, or occupation, length of residence, &c. If the secretary, after examination, 
is satisfied of the truth of the memorial, he may issue a certificate, granting to the 
alien, on his taking the prescribed oaths, all the rights of a natural-horn subject, except 
that of being a member of ParHament or of the Privy Council, and any other excep- 
tions especially named in the certificate; which certificate must be enrolled in the 
Court of Chancery. 

This statute did not extend to the Colonies. See statute 10 and 11 Victoria, 
chap. 83, enacted in 1847, cited poit. 



and subscribing the declaration appointed by statute 6 Anne, 
chap. 23, and having received the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper in some Protestant congregation within three months, 
shall be deemed natural-born subjects. 

This law did not extend to the Colonies, and did not find 
favor at home. Parliament soon relapsed into the old "strin- 
gent doctrine of the common law, and in 1711, after an 
experiment of three years, repealed the statute of 7 Anne, 
because, according to the preamble, " divers mischiefs and 
inconveniences have been found by experience to follow from 
the same, to the discouragement of the natural-born subjects 
of this kingdom, and to the detriment of the trade and wealth 
thereof." The " discouragement and detriment " may have 
been more in seeming than in fact ; but so it was, that this 
exclusion of foreigners remained as of old in the mother 
country until the present reign. 

But there were other statutes designed for the benefit of 
the Colonies, where it was supposed the " discouragement 
and detriment " complained of at home would not exist. In 
several of the Colonies, foreign Protestants had become 
numerous, and their numbers were rapidly increasing ; and 
thus it had become a very desirable object to attach them to 
their new homes, by giving them an interest in the soil, and 
admitting them to full civil and political privileges, so that 
agriculture and trade and general wealth might be developed. 
To this end, in 1740, the statute 13 George II., chap. 7, was 
passed, with a preamble similar to that of 7 Anne : viz., that 
" the increase of a people is a means of advancing the wealth 
and strength of any nation or country ; and that many for- 
eigners and strangers, from the lenity of our government, 
the purity of our religion, the benefit of our laws, the ad' 
vantages of our trade, and the security of our property, 
might be induced to come and settle in some of his majesty's 
Colonies in America, if they were made partakers of the 
advantages and privileges which the natural-born subjects of 
this realm do enjoy." 



6 



This statute admitted all Protestant foreigners to the privir 
leges of natural-born subjects, on a residence of seven years 
in any one of the Colonies, without an absence exceeding 
two months at any one time, taking the oaths of allegiance, 
abjuration, &c., and receiving the sacrament, &c. The oaths 
and declarations — with exceptions in favor of Quakers and 
Jews — were required to be taken before a judge in open 
court, between nine and twelve o'clock in the forenoon ; and 
to be entered in the same court, and also in the secretary's 
office of the Colony. The judge was required to make a due 
and proper entry of the oaths, &c., " in a book to be kept for 
that purpose in said court ; " and the secretary was required 
to make the like entry in a like book to be kept for the same 
purpose in his office, upon notification by the judge. 

A certificate, under the Colonial seal, was full proof of 
naturalization. 

The secretary was directed to transmit to the office of the 
Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, annually, the names 
of all who had taken the benefit of the act. 

Naturalized persons could not be of the Privy Council or of 
Parliament ; or hold any office or place of trust, civil or mili- 
tary, in Great Britain or Ireland ; or hold real estate within 
the same by grant from the crown.* 

In 1747, by statute 20 George IL, chap. 44, the benefits of 
the statute of 1740 were extended to the " Moravian Bre- 
thren, and other foreign Protestants, not Quakers, who con- 
scientiously scruple the taking of an oath ; many of whom 
are settled in the Colonies." They are described as a " sober, 
quiet, and industrious people ; " and it is added, that " many 
others of the like persuasion are desirous to transport them- 
selves thither." 



* This clause in the statute was repealed by statute 13 George III., chap. 83, so far 
as concerned holding office or taking crown grants of land, except within the kingdom 
of Great Britain and Ireland. The repeal extends to the subsequent statutes recited 
below. 



The statute 29 George II., chap. 5, enacted in 1756, recites 
that many foreign Protestants have been induced by the 
statute of 1740 to settle in some of the Colonies, "particularly 
in the Provinces of Maryland and Pennsylvania ; the natural- 
born subjects of which last-mentioned Province do in great 
part consist of the people called Quakers, whose backward- 
ness in their own defence exposes themselves and that part 
of America to imminent danger." On this account, provision 
is made for raising a regiment of four battalions, of one 
thousand men each, into which naturalized foreigners may 
be enlisted; and a certain number of foreigners who have 
served abroad as officers or engineers may be appointed to 
serve in the regiment, on taking the oaths, &c., as prescribed 
in the former statutes. The colonel of the regiment must 
be " a natural-born subject, and not any person naturalized 
or made a denizen." 

In 1761, statute 2 George III., chap. 25, these officers 
were duly remembered. They had raised " a great number 
of men, and trained them to discipline as soldiers." Several 
of the officers had " purchased estates in the Colonies, and 
had given the strongest assurances of their attachment and 
fidelity to ' the British Government." On these grounds, 
and to induce others, then or thereafter settled in America, 
" to engage in his majesty's service," it provided " that all 
such foreign Protestants, as well officers as soldiers, who 
have served or shall hereafter serve in the Royal-American 
regiment,* or as engineers in America, for the space of two 
years, and shall take and subscribe the oaths, and make, re- 
peat, and subscribe the declaration, &c., . . . shall be deemed 
. . . his majesty's natural-born subjects of this kingdom." 



* General Gates, a native of England, was a major in the Royal Americans. At 
an earlier period in the French War, he was captain of a New- York Independent 
Company which served in the campaign of Braddocli. He was severely wounded in 
the battle in which Braddock was defeated. In 1772, he emigrated to Virginia, and 
purchased an estate in Berkeley County. 



8 



The foregoing enumeration embraces all the English sta- 
tute provisions in relation to naturalization in the Colonies 
preceding the Revolution. They are sufficiently liberal in 
term of residence required ; and probably many foreign Pro- 
testants, in several of the Colonies, sought for the benefits 
opened by these statutes. But in Massachusetts, where the 
population was well-nigh homogeneous and Puritan, it was 
otherwise. In the Court of Common Pleas for the County 
of Suffolk, not one instance of naturalization is to be found 
from 1740 to 1752. Whether there were any between 1752 
and the Revolution cannot be ascertained, as the records 
for the whole of that period are and have been missing 
from the office ever since the evacuation of Boston, in 
March, 1776.* 

The records of the Superior Court of the Province for 
all the Counties are kept in the office of the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, in Boston ; and it is remarkable, as the result 
of a careful search which I directed to be made from 1 740 up 
to the Revolution, that only four persons were naturalized in 
that court.f No book, such as the judge was required to 
keep, is to be found ; and there is none in the office of the 
Secretary of State. The only persons naturalized under these 
laws were Nicholas Budd, Aaron Lopez, Emanuel Peraro, and 
Theodore Dehon. 

The following is an abstract of the record in each case : — 



* At one time, it was thought that they were in Halifax, N.S. ; and an early effort 
was made to find them, but in vain. The late William C. Aylwin, Esq., when clerk, 
met with no better success. Thinking, possibly, that they might have been taken to 
England, I applied to my friend Rev. Joseph Hunter, of London, a learned antiquary, 
and intimately acquainted with the public archives; but he had never seen or heard 
of the missing volumes. 

t The reason may have been, that the petitioner for naturalization must have 
received the sacrament in a Protestant reformed congregation within three months 
previous. This would have required him either to become a member of the Episcopal 
Church, or else to join a Congregational, Presbyterian, or other dissenting church, — 
all of which were hedged in with creeds. 



,from mi to 1780.- 


— Naturalizations. 


Nov. 17, 1741 . 


. . Page 135 


Oct. 15, 1762 . 


. . „ 450 


Sept. 8, 1766 . 


. . „ 110 


March 23, 1767 . 


. . „ 212 



Nicholas Budd . . 

Aaron Lopez . . . 

Emanuel Peraro . . 

Theodore Dehon . . 

Upon reading the petition of Nicholas Budd, a native of N6rway, 
in the kingdom of Denmark, but now resident in Boston, showing that 
bj evidences, and a certificate herewith presented, he, conceiving him- 
self to be duly qualified for and entitled to naturalization, according 
to an Act made in the thirteenth year of his present majesty's reign, 
and thereupon praying that he may be naturalized according to said 
Act of Parliament, — Ordered, That the prayer of the petition be 
granted ; it appearing to the court that the said Nicholas Budd has 
been an inhabitant of his majesty's dominions for more than seven 
years last past, and has within three months last past received the 
sacrament in a Protestant reformed congregation in this town of 
Boston. The oaths appointed to be taken instead of the oaths of alle- 
giance and supremacy were administered to him by order of court, 
and subscribed by him ; and he made and subscribed the declaration 
according to the direction of the said Act of Parliament. 

Aaron Lopez, of Swansey, in the county of Bristol, merchant, a 
Jew, formerly residing at Newport, in the Colony of Rhode Island, 
&c., — to wit, at said Newport from Oct. 13, 1752, to Sept. 10, 1762, 
and at said Swansey since, — took and subscribed the oaths, &c., in 
presence of the chief justice and other three justices, between the 
hours of nine and twelve in the morning.* 

Emanuel Peraro, a Portuguese, now of Boston, mariner, where he 
has resided for more than seven years, and not been absent for more 
than two months, proof made thereof, and of his having received the 
sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England, was 
admitted, and took and subscribed the oaths before the chief justice 
and other justices, between the hours aforesaid. 

* Lopez was a Jew. In 1777, with several other Jewish families, he removed to 
Leicester, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and was there extensively engaged 
in trade. He was a man of intelligence and industry, and became thrifty according 
to the wont of his people. 

See Washburn's History of Leicester for some further account of Lopez and other 
Jewish residents in that town. 

2 



10 



Theodore Dehon, now of Boston, born out of the legiance of his 
majesty the King of Great Britain, resided in said Boston more 
than seven years, and not been absent, &c. ; that he is a Protestant, 
and of the communion of the Church of England. And said Theo- 
dore, on certificate of his having received the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper according to the usage of the church aforesaid, was admit- 
ted, and took and subscribed the oaths before the chief justice and 
two other justices, between the hours, &c. 

Turning from the English statutes, it is next to be ascer- 
tained whether the Colonial charters clothed the local gov- 
ernment with authority to create British subjects within 
their respective Colonies. 

By the Massachusetts-Colony Charter, the governor, assist- 
ants, and freemen had power to choose others to be free of 
the company, and to transport " so many of our loving 
subjects, or any other strangers that will become our lov- 
ing subjects and live under our allegiance, as shall willingly 
accompany them in the same voyages and ' plantation.' " 
Under this provision of the charter, there would seem to be 
no difficulty in supposing that they did or might admit foreign 
Protestants to become freemen. If any such strayed this 
way, men of orthodox lives and conversation, according to 
the standard, and were admitted to the church, as they might 
be, what prevented their being made free, on petition to that 
end ? By joining the church, the door was open which gave 
a view of civil and political privileges in the near distance. 
No one could be admitted to freedom, unless he was a mem- 
ber of one of the churches ; and, being a member, admission 
was almost of course, if applied for.* The colonists were 
still a '^ company," an incorporated company, with power to 



* None could be compelled to become freemen ; and, after a while, it came to be a 
sore evil that many church members refrained from applying for admission. They 
did so that they might not be called to public service as constables, jurors, selectmen, 
&c. Ill order to meet their case, a fine was imposed on all such who refused service. — 
Colonial Laws, 1647. 



11 



admit or refuse admission as they pleased ; in other words, 
to select associates according to their pleasure and their 
sympathies, within the prescribed limits. These would then, 
in the language of the charter, " become our loving subjects, 
and live under our allegiance." Of course, they would only 
be subjects within the Colony, with no power to exe\"cise 
civil and political functions in England. It may be that the 
case never occurred ; but, if it did occur, it is not seen how 
any other result could have been reached. 

In the Province Charter, there was no express provision 
authorizing the naturalization of foreigners ; and none can be 
gathered by implication. 

In New Hampshire, there is nothing on the subject, either 
in the commission of Charles II. to President Cutts, or in 
the commission of 6 George III. to Governor Wentworth. 

In Rhode Island, the charter of 15 Charles II. authorized 
the Assembly to choose persons to be free of the company 
and body politic, and to admit them into the same. The 
charter made no distinction between English subjects and 
others. 

So, in Connecticut, the charter of Charles II. allowed the 
General Assembly to choose, &c., persons to be free of the 
body politic, and to admit them into the same. 

In New York, by the letters-patent of 16 Charles II. to 
the Duke of York, the duke was allowed to bring into the 
Colony not only subjects of the realm, '' but any other 
strangers who would become subjects." And, when the 
Province was surrendered to the crown, it was stipulated 
that '^ all people should continue free denizens " within the 
Colony ; and " that any people might come from the Nether- 
lands, and plant " in the Province. 

In New Jersey, in 1664, under the government of Lord 
Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, all who wished were admit- 
ted to become freemen, and so subjects, on taking the oaths 
of allegiance, &g. Being absolute lords-proprietors, they 



12 



were not limited in their authority, as were the charter 
governments. 

In Pennsylvania, by the ^^ laws agreed upon in England " 
in 1683, " every inhabitant purchasing a hundred acres ; 
every person who has paid his passage, and taken a hundred 
acres ; every person that hath been a servant or bondman, 
and ' is free by his service,' and has taken jfifty acres ; ' and 
every inhabitant, artificer, or other resident in the Province, 
that pays scot or lot * to the governor/ — shall be deemed a 
freeman, and capable of electing or being elected representa- 
tive or councillor." f 

In Maryland, Lord Baltimore, by the charter of 8 Charles I., 
was constituted " the true and absolute lord and proprietary," 
and of course, as such, had the power to authorize his Assembly 
to grant process of naturalization ; which power, as will be 
seen in the sequel, was exercised. 

In North Carolina, no such power was reserved in the 
charter of Charles II. 

The next inquiry is, Did any of the Colonies, in their local 
Legislatures, establish laws on the subject, or lay claim of 
right so to do ? Mr. Dane, the learned and generally very 
accurate commentator on American law, states that "there 
were no naturalizations in the Colonies, before the Revolution, 
but such as took place under the Acts of the British Par- 
liament.":]: The remarks before made on the charters show 
that he is in error ; and this wiU appear beyond question by 



* Scot and lot is defined to be " parish payments." 

t Colonial Records, vols, i., xxix., xxx. 

X Abridgment of American Law, vol. iv. p. 708. Mr. Dane also states, p. 709, 
that "the Germans who came from Germany, and settled at Waldoborough about 
A.D. 1750, were and remained aliens." Perhaps this was so: but then it must have 
been of their own choice; for, so ftir as they were Protestants, — and most if not all of 
them were of that faith, — they might have been naturalized under tbe statute of 13 
George II., chap. 7, passed in 1740. 



13 



the following reference to the laws of several of the 
Colonies. 

In 1683, "to quiet the minds of his majesty's subjects of 
foreign birth," the Legislature of New York passed an Act, 
allowing all persons professing Christianity, now or hereafter 
becoming inhabitants, to be naturalised on taking the , oath 
of allegiance. This phrase, " all persons professing Christian- 
ity," is found in no other Colonial law, and doubtless was 
introduced because the Duke of York was a Roman Catholic ; 
and the king was well known to be in full sympathy with his 
brother, 'though outwardly conforming to the Church of 
England. Again: by a law of 1715,1 George I., foreigners 
who had become inhabitants after 1683, who had purchased 
estates and conveyed them away, or who had died seized 
thereof, were deemed to be naturalized ; and all Protestant 
foreigners, inhabitants in 1715, were to be deemed natural 
subjects on taking the prescribed oaths within nine months 
from the passage of the Act.'^" 

In New Jersey, as has been seen, Lord Berkeley and Sir 
George Carteret, in 1664, among their " Grants and Conces- 
sions," allowed all who would become subjects to be admitted 
to become freemen on taking the oaths of allegiance ; and 
authorized the Assembly to pass an Act "to give to all 
strangers ... a naturalization, . . . and all such freedoms 
and privileges within the Province as to his majesty's sub- 
jects of right belong." f 

And in Pennsylvania, as has been seen, by the laws agreed 
upon in England in 1683, the most ample power was given 
in the premises. 

So also in Maryland, under the successors of Sir George 
Calvert, — Lord Baltimore : " The true and absolute lords 



* Laws of New York, Livingston and Smith's edition, 1762. 2 vols, folio, 
t " Grants and Concessions," pp. 13, 14, 17. Folio. 



14 



and proprietaries." The same power was vested in the 
Assembly.* 

In Virginia, there was a law of 1671, under which " any 
strangers " — as the expression was — might be naturalized ; 
and, by virtue of this law, many were naturalized by special 
Acts of the Assembly. This continued until 1680, when 
Lord Culpepper brought over, '' under the great seal of Eng- 
land," a naturalization law, which was introduced, "and passed 
the Assembly unanimously." 

In October, 1705, another naturalization law was passed. 
The latter law at least, if not the previous ones, was confined 
to foreign Protestants ; they taking the usual oaths, and the 
oath of abjuration of " the pretended Prince of Wales." 

In 1738, chap. 12, the General Assembly authorized the 
Governor to grant letters of naturalization to any aliens who 
should settle on the Eoanoke, — 'the southern boundary of 
the Colony; they taking the oaths, &c. 

In Massachusetts, as before stated, there was neither ex- 
press nor implied authority in the General Court to pass laws 
on the subject, nor by special Acts to admit foreigners to the 
privileges of British subjects. 

The statute of Anne, 1708, repealed in 1711, had no refer- 
ence to the Colonies ; and there was no subsequent English 
statute, until that of 13 George II. in 1740, by which for- 
eigners residing in Massachusetts could become British sub- 
jects. Indeed, it was so from the revocation of the Colony 
Charter until 1740. Meanwhile, many foreign Protestants had 
settled in Massachusetts, — Huguenots driven from France on 
the revocation of the edict of Nantes, with Germans and others 
who had emigrated to this country for the " enlargement of 
their outward estates." These persons were subjected to the 



* The law itself has not been found on the old Statute-book. It may have been 
overlooked. But that the power was freely exercised, appears from statute 1704, 
chap. 4, regulating for the future the fees which the Clerk of the Assembly should 
receive from persons naturalized by Acts of the Assembly. 



15 



payment of taxes, and sometimes were called to exercise 
municipal office ; but, in all other respects, they were de- 
barred from the rights and privileges of natural-born subjects. 
They were not numerous in the Puritan Commonwealth, com- 
pared with some of the other Colonies ; but numerous enough 
to be considered on that ground, as well as for their general 
good character and quiet demeanor. 

-Possibly Massachusetts thought, that if Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, and other sister Colonies, permitted resident foreigners 
to become British subjects within their own borders, she 
might do the same. 

Thus circumstanced, several French Protestants, and one 
from Germany, presented the following petition to the Gene- 
ral Court, at the February Session, 1731, N.S. : — 

"7^0 His Excellency Jonathan Belcher, Esq., Governor and Commander- 
in-chief in and over his Majesty's Province of Massachusetts Bay ; 
to the Honorable the Council and the House of Representatives in 
General Court assembled. 

" The petition of the persons hereto subscribed showeth that the 
petitioners, for the most part, were forced to leave their native country 
of France on account of the Protestant religion, in which they had 
been bred up and professed, and for which some of the petitioners 
have been greatly persecuted and distressed. 

"And, farther, the petitioners most humbly remonstrate to your 
Excellency and to this Great and General Assembly, that the most part 
of them have, for almost the space of forty years or upwards (during 
which time they have chieffly resided in this country), behaved them- 
selves justly to their neighboui's, and, in their respective callings, with 
unshaken fidelity towards the gouvernment here, and the crown of 
Great Britain ; and have been allways subjected as well as to pay 
rates and taxes, as also to bear offices of constable, &c., which several 
of them have sustained and executed with great faithfulness in their 
respective dutys : so that they hope, by the favour of this Great and 
General Court (which is well known at all times to act with great 
equity, and to relieve, where they can, the distressed), tliat as they 
have been always subject to do dutys, so they may be intituled to all 
the privileges of a denisen, or natural-born subject, of his majesty's, 



16 



so far as is consistent with the power and justice of this Great and 
General Court ; it being what hath been generally practiced by most 
nations of Europe in favour of the French Protestant refugees, but 
more particularly by the crown of Great Britain and the dependent Colo- 
nys, as the petitioners can prove by many instances. Therefore, 
upon the whole, the petitioners do humbly pray an order of this Great 
and General Court to confer upon them the rights and privileges of 
denisens, or free-born subjects, of the King of Great Britain ; or be 
otherwise relieved, notwithstanding any law, usage, or custom, to 
the contrary ; or that they may be farther heard by the Council in the 
premises. They say relieved as this Great and General Court shall 
judge meet ; and, as in duty bound, your petitioners shall ever 
pray, &c. 




aS^a^mS'-ziiAiA^jsu. 



^ia^-. 



^^ ^^^; 



^^tS^r^- 









17 



"In Council, Feb. 25, 1730. — Eead, and ordered that the prayer 
of the petition be so far granted as that the petitioners, together with 
all other foreign Protestant inhabitants of this Province, shall, 
within this Province, hold and enjoy all the privileges and immunities 
of his majesty's natural-born subjects; and that they have leave to 
bring in a bill accordingly. 

" Sent down for concurrence, ' 

"J. WiLLARD, Secretary. 

"In the House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 1730. — Read and 

concurred. 

"J. QuiNCT, Speaker." 

In pursuance of this leave, a bill was introduced into the 
House of Representatives, which passed to be enacted on 
the 16th of March, and was approved by Governor Belcher 
on the 2d of April following. It is in the following terms ; 
viz. : — «. ^ 

"Passed by the Great and General Court, or Assembly, of his 
majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, begun 
and held at Boston upon Wednesday, the tenth day of February, 
1730. 

" Chapter XIV. — An Act for Naturalizing Protestants of Foreign 
Nations inhabiting within this Province. 

" Whereas divers Protestants of the French and other foreign na- 
tions have removed themselves and their families into this Province, 
who are well affected to his majesty's government, and useful mem- 
bers of the Commonwealth, but, being born out of the king's legiance, 
have not, by law, a right to the privileges and immunities of his 
majesty's natural-born subjects, but are under divers disabilities, and 
subjected to many inconveniences and difficulties in their persons 
and estates: — 

"To the intent, therefore, that such persons, and all other well- 
disposed Protestants of foreign nations, may have due encouragement 
to settle themselves and their families within this Province, — 

"Be it enacted by his Excellency the Governor, Council, and 
Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of 
the same, — 

3 



18 



" That, from and after the publication of this Act, all Protestants, 
of foreign nations, that have inhabited or resided within this Province 
for the space of one year, are hei'eby declared to be naturalized to all 
intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, within this Province ; 
and from henceforth, and at all times hereafter, shall be entitled to 
have and enjoy all the rights, liberties, and privileges within this 
Province, and no otherwise, which his majesty's natural-born subjects 
in the said Province ought to have and enjoy, as fully to all intents 
and purposes whatsoever as if they had been born within the said 
Province. 

" Provided always, and it is hereby enacted. That all foreign Pro- 
testants that shall have the benefit of this Act shall take the oaths by 
law appointed to be taken, instead of the oaths of allegiance and 
supremacy ; subscribe the test, or declaration ; and take, repeat, 
and subscribe the abjuration-oath, — in presence of the Governor and 
Council of this Province ; which shall be made of record in the 
Council-books, and for which each person so swearing and subscribing 
shall pay to the Secretary of the Province five shillings ; and he shall 
demand no more. 

" And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid. That if any 
foreign Protestant, having so sworn and subscribed as aforesaid, shall 
and do demand a certificate of his being entered ^upon record in 
manner aforesaid, the Secretary of this Province, for the time being, 
is hereby directed and required to grant the same under his hand, for 
which he may demand two shillings and sixpence, and no more ; which 
certificate shall at all times be a sufficient proof that such person is 
naturalized by this Act, and as effectual as if the record aforesaid 
were actually produced by them or any of them." 



The foregoing Act was passed to be enacted March 16, 
and was approved by Governor Belcher, April 2, 1731. The 
session began Feb. 10, and ended April 24, 1731. 

It will be observed that this statute gives to those who 
are naturahzed the same rights as natural-born subjects with- 
in the Province. "Of course, no wider power could be exer- 
cised. No Colonial government, as before remarked, could 
confer rights and privileges to be exercised outside of the 
local jurisdiction, much less in the mother country. Parlia- 



19 



ment alone could give authority to widen a Colonial natu- 
ralization, so that the subject of it should be a denizen of the 
empire.'^ 

Under this law, all the petitioners, except Duchezeau, — 
viz., Le Mercier,t Johonnot,:]: Sigourney,§ Petel,|| and Brim- 
mer,!" — appeared before the Governor and Council on the 
12th of the same April, and were naturalized. They were 
followed, on the 7th of December then next, by Philip Bon- 
garden,"^"^ John Brown (nomen generalissimum), John Saciller, 
John Groward, and Philip Palier. John Arnault, of Boston, 
furrier, closed the list on the 18th of August, 1732. 

These are all the persons whose names appear on the 



* In the statute of 7 and 8 Victoria, chap. 6, which freely opened the door for the 
admission of foreigners, a question is raised, whether the Colonial laws on the subject 
of naturalization were of any validity. In consequence of this doubt, the statute of 
10 and 11 Victoria, chap. 83, was enacted in 1847; confirming all such laws already 
made, and allowing future laws touching local naturalization, subject to confirmation 
or disallowance by her majesty. No law of the kind could have any validity beyond 
the limits of the Colony in which it was made. It was further declared, that the 
statute of 7 and 8 Victoria, chap. 66, did not extend to the Colonies. 

t In his will, dated at Dorchester, Nov. 7, 1761, with a codicil, February, 1764, 
proved June 15, 1764, he names children, — Andrew, Margaret, Jane, and Bartholomew, 
" if living." Hi,s son Peter Le Mercier, born Aug. 7, 1723, is not named. No examina- 
tion has been made to ascertain the time of his death. His daughter Jane (unmarried), 
living in Dorchester, in 1769 conveyed to William Dennie, of Boston, part of an estate, 
No. 18, Long Wharf, which she inherited from her father. The deed was not recorded 
till 1793. 

X "Daniel Johonnot, of Boston, distiller," in his will, May, 1748, proved July 1, 
1748, names sons, — Zachary, Andrew, and Francis; and the children of his daughter, 
Mary Ann (Johonnot) Boyer, deceased. 

§ " Andrew Sigourney, sen., of Boston, distiller, aged and infirm," made his will 
in May, 1736. It was proved July 5, 1748. His children were Andrew (mariner), Su- 
sanna, Mary, Charles, Anthony, Daniel, Hannah. His wife Mary survived him. 

II "John Petel, of Boston, mariner, made his will, June 30, 1735. It was proved 
May 9, 1749. He was a married man, but left no children. 

^ " Martin Brimmer, of Boston, staymaker," in his will, April 3, 1755, proved June 
24, 1760, mentions wife Susanna, and four sons — viz., Herman, Martin, Andrew, and 
John Baker — and four daughters. 

** " Philip Bongarden, of Boston, shopkeeper," made his will, June 24, 1748. It 
was proved April 20, 1753. He names his wife; his daughter Elizabeth, wife of jEneas 
Mackay; and his grandson, Philip Cutler. In 1748, he became the owner of some real 
estate on the northerly side of State Street. 



20 



Council-records. Why so few sought the benefit of this law^ 
is not known. The number of foreign Protestants^ at least 
French Protestants, may have been more numerous for a 
few years after 1687 than they were in 1731 ; but there were 
others — respectable men, who might be named — here in the 
latter year who do not seem to have become subjects of Massa- 
chusetts Bay. Perhaps they were naturalized in Great Britain, 
or in some other of "the dependent colonys" (ante, p. 16). 

At the present day, descendants of Sigourney, Johonnot, 
and Brimmer, bear up the respectable character of their 
earliest American ancestors ; while of Groward and Palier no 
vestiges have been discovered. In May, 1748, Brown and 
Arnault, two of the proprietors of the French Church in 
School Street, in connection with the remaining proprietors, 
— viz., " Stephen Botineau (the only surviving elder of the 
church), Andrew Le Mercier (clerk, minister of said church), 
Zechariah Johonnot, Andrew Johonnot, James Packenet, 
William Bowdoin, and Andrew Sigourney, — conveyed the 
church-property to the trustees of the new Congregational 
Church, of which the Rev. Andrew Croswell was pastor.* 

Rev. Mr. Le Mercier was successor to Rev, Peter Daille, 
who died in May, 1715. The former, surviving the diminution 
and dissolution of his society, went to his rest, in Boston, in 
March, 1764. He was held in esteem, in the place of his 
adoption, for his Christian virtues and graces.f 

It only remains to speak of Bongarden and Saciller, and 
that in connection with the Palatines. Beyond this connec- 
tion, nothing has been ascertained in relation to Saciller. 

In March, 1732, Philip Bongarden and John Saciller, as 



* Drake's History of Boston; Suffolk Eegistry of Deeds. 

t The late Eev. Dr. Holmes published a very interesting " Memoir of the French 
Pi-otestants, who settled at Oxford, Mass., A.D. 1686; with a Sketch of the entire 
History of the Protestants of France." See Collections of the Massachusetts Historical 
Society, vol. ii. 3d series, pp. 1-83. 



21 



" agents for the Palatines," made complaint to the Governor 
and Council of " the cruel and inhuman treatment " the 
Palatines received " from Captain Jacob Lobb, in their pas- 
sage from Holland, by reason of which the greatest part of 
their company died at sea ; and of his barbarous usage of the 
survivors after their arrival at Martha's Yineyard, which had 
occasioned the death of divers others ; and prayed that 
exemplary justice might be done on the said Lobb." The 
Council referred the complainants, with their papers, to 
the Superior Court. 

Two indictments were found against Lobb at the April 
Term of the Superior Court in Barnstable. Lobb was a 
Cornwall man from Penzance, and was on a voyage from 
Rotterdam to Philadelphia ; having in his vessel more than a 
hundred Palatines, who went on board at Rotterdam in June, 
1731. The vessel was obliged to put into the Yineyard in 
November, while on the voyage to Philadelphia. Lobb was 
charged with occasioning the death of Johannes Youngman, 
about two years of age, son of John Didrick Youngman ; and 
Jacob Comes, jun., about the age of nine years, a Palatine, 
son of Jacob Comes, — by detaining them on board the vessel 
after she reached Holmes's Hole ; that the child Youngman 
was infirm and sickly, and languished and died by reason of 
not being furnished by Lobb with sufficient food to sustain 
life ; and that Comes also died of hunger. According to the 
allegations in the indictment, Lobb was under contract to 
supply the passengers with provisions for the voyage. The 
jury returned verdicts in favor of the captain. 

In the latter part of the same month, Bongarden and 
Saciller made complaint to the Governor and Council of 
other troubles suffered by the Palatines at Edgartown, inas- 
much as Lobb refused to save the town harmless for their 
support, and the authorities threatened to imprison and sell 
them to satisfy charges. The Council acted promptly on this 
complaint. 



22 



In July following, Bongarden alone preferred a third pe- 
tition, by which it appeared that the poor Palatines — now 
more than a year from home, and still distant from their 
destination — were in Duke's-County Jail at the suit of Lobb, 
pending in the Court of Common Pleas ; and that Payne and 
Zaccheus Mayhew, two of the justices, had so far engaged 
in " the controversy as to be liable to a bias " in Lobb's favor. 
The Council, on investigation, being satisfied that the May- 
hews had taken sides with Lobb, set them aside in all causes 
between him and the Palatines, and appointed Joseph Lathrop 
and John Thacher special justices in their place. 

In May, 1736, the Council recognized the humanity and 
fidelity of Philip Bongarden, and allowed him for his " charge, 
time, and trouble," on account of the Palatines, the sum of 
X173. 16s. 

The law of the Province of Massachusetts, which has been 
under notice, is not found in any edition of the general laws ; 
so that its existence seems to be unknown at the present day. 
The Province Charter required that all laws should be trans- 
mitted to the king, " under the public seal, . . . for approba- 
tion or disallowance." If disallowed and rejected by the 
king in Privy Council, within three years after being pre- 
sented, and so signified under the king's '^ sign-manual and 
signet," or " by the Privy Council to the Governor," they be- 
came thenceforth " void, and of none efiect ; " but, if not 
returned within three years, they remained in force. 

There is nothing to be found in the office of the Secretary 
of State to show that this law was returned to the Governor, 
except the fact that the law appears nowhere, save in a little 
pamphlet of temporary enactments. This, however, may be 
considered full proof; and, as there was no naturalization 
after that of Arnault in August, 1732, it is a fair inference 
that the law soon afterwards came to an untimely death. 

It is a matter of history that Provincial laws were disal- 
lowed by the king ; and how then can it be accounted for 



23 



that no veto or disallowance thereof, " under the king's sign- 
manual or signet/' or ^^by the Privy Council to the Governor," 
is to be found on file, or in any way alluded to, in the records 
at the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth ? * 

It only remains to consider the subject of naturalization in 
Massachusetts, from the date of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence until near the close of the last century, — six years 
after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. 

By the Declaration of Independence, the Colonies assumed 
the position of independent States ; and, under the Confedera- 
tion, several of them passed naturalization laws, while others 
naturalized foreigners by special Acts. There was no uni- 
form system. 

" The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization," says Mr. 
Madison, " has long been remarked as a fault in our system, 
and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate ques- 
tions." In referring to the confusion of language in the 
fourth article of the Confederation, he adds, '' In one State, 
residence for a short time confers all the rights of citizen- 
ship ; in another, qualifications of greater importance are 
required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for cer- 
tain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in 
the former, elude his incapacity, and thus the laws of one 
State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of 
another within the jurisdiction of the other." f 

This dissimilarity in the rules " gave rise, under the Con- 
federation, to some intricate and delicate questions." X 



* I have found no reason assig^ned for the disallowance of this law. Was it from 
any known or supposed difference between the charter governments and the proprie- 
tary and royal governments in this respect? We have seen that other Colonies exer- 
cised the jurisdiction ; and the Huguenots themselves say in their petition (ante, p. 16), 
that many of their brethren have been naturalized by "the dependent Colonys" of 
Great Britain, " as the petitioners can prove by many instances." 

t The Federalist, No. xlii. 

X Duer's Lectures on Constitutional Jurisprudence, p. 296. 



24 



There was no general naturalization law in Massachusetts 
under the Constitution of 1780 ; but individuals were ad- 
mitted to citizenship by special Acts, the earliest of which 
was June 27, 1782. It appeared in this case that Michael 
Cunningham and John Prescott, late of Halifax, in Nova 
Scotia, " had exerted themselves for the relief of American 
prisoners at Halifax, and, in many instances, opposed British 
tyranny ; espousing the cause of America, and fleeing to 
this country to pay obedience to, and receive protection 
from, its laws," As a reward, and " to encourage such well- 
disposed foreigners to join themselves to us," — '^ on taking 
and subscribing the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and other 
oaths required by the laws of the Commonwealth, before any 
two Justices of the Peace," — Cunningham and Prescott 
" were to be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural sub- 
jects of the Commonwealth, to all intents, &c., as if they had 
been born in the Commonwealth." 

The Justices were required to make return to the Secre- 
tary of the Commonwealth, '^ who shall record the same in a 
book, to be kept among the public records of the Common- 
wealth for the purpose of recording the names of such for- 
eigners as shall be hereafter naturalized by Acts of the 
Commonwealth." 

The following persons were allowed to be naturalized ; but 
whether they all took the oaths, and actually became subjects 
or citizens, it is not easy to ascertain, as the book kept by the 
secretary cannot now be found.* No particular length of 
residence was required before naturalization. Several of 
these individuals and families, residents in Boston, will be 
recognized by those familiar with the society of the place in 
the earlier part of the present century.f 

* The title of this book is found in the catalogue kept at the office of the Secretary 
of State ; but the book itself has not been seen for some years. 

t Many notes might be made in addition to those which follow, were it worth 
while to pursue the investigation. 



25 



Among those naturalized, there were several persons who 
had left the State during the Revolution, and adhered to the 
crown, or, in the words of the statute, had "joined the ene- 
mies of the State." In the heat of the war, — September, 
1778, — an Act was passed forbidding their return to the 
State, and providing for their removal in case of return. 
Should they voluntarily come into the State a second time, 
" without leave from the General Court," they were, " on 
conviction before the Superior Court, to suffer the pains of 
death, without benefit of clergy." 

All those persons who left the Province after the 5th of 
October, 1774, and before the "making" of the Constitution 
of the Commonwealth, and had taken English protection, 
were held to be aliens. By a law of 1784, these persons, if 
not named in the Confiscation Act of 1779, and not having 
borne arms against their country, might return to the State, 
under license from the Governor and Council. This license 
remained in force until the end of the next session of the 
General Court ; at which time, unless the General Court had 
approved the license, or an Act of naturalization had been 
passed in fayor of the individual, he was required " to depart 
the State." 

1782, June 27. Michael Cunningham, John Prescott. 

1784, Feb. 13. John Gardiner, barrister-at-Iaw. John Silvester 

John* and William Gardiner, his children. [His 
wife, Ann Gardiner, is mentioned in the title of 
the Act, but was omitted in the enacting clause. 
The omission was supplied Oct. 25, 1787.] 

Mar. 23. Thomas Hopkins, of Falmouth, Cumberland County, 
late of Devonshire, Great Britain. 

June 30. Thomas Robison, of Falmouth, Cumberland County, 
late of Quebec. 

1785, Feb. 28. Nicholas Rousselet, Boston, auctioneer. 

. George Smith, Andover, laborer. 

* The late Rev, Dr. Gardiner, of Trinity Churcii, Boston. 
4 



26 



1785, Nov. 22. Paul Beltremieux, Newburyport, late of Rochelle, 

France. 
„ 23. William Bond, Falmouth, Cumberland County, gold- 
smith, late of Devonshire, in Great Britain. 

1786, Feb. 7. Michael Walsh, Salisbury. 

„ 8. William Erving, Esq., Boston. 

John Duballet,* Boston. 
„ 17. James Wakefield, born in Massachusetts, but for fifteen 
years past residing in Nova Scotia. Ann Wake- 
field, his wife. Their children, — Benjamin, Ann, 
Terence,t Mary. 
June 5. Robert Morris, Shrewsbury. 

James Alexander, Shrewsbury. 
July 7. Jonathan Curson, Northampton, late of Exeter, Eng- 
land. 
William Oliver, Northampton, late of Bridport, Eng- 
land. 

1787, Mar. 2. William Martin and Elizabeth Martin, Boston. 

William Moch,j Boston. 

John Amory,§ Boston. 

David Smith, and Elizabeth his wife, Portland. Their 
children, — Moses, Ruth, Mercy, Lendall, David, 
Elizabeth, Hannah, Dorothy, Godfrey. 

William Molton, Portland. 

William Haggett, „ 

John Nicholas Rudberg, and Anne his wife, Portland. 

Thomas Craigie, Billerica. 
May 1. Edward Wyer,| and Alice his wife. "His" chil- 
dren, — Edward and William. 

David Greene, and Rebecca his wife. " His " chil- 
dren, — John Rose Greene, David Ireland Greene,1f 
Charles Winston Greene,** Rebecca Greene. 

* Merchant, Distil-house Square. — Boston Directory, 1789. 

t For many years a druggist and apothecary in Boston. 

J Hairdresser, 28, Newbury S-treet. — Boston Directory, 1789. By statute 1807, 
chap. 122, his son William was allowed to take the name of Andrew Jeremiah Allen. 

§ Storekeeper, 41, Marlborough Street. — Boston Directory, 1789. 

II He was a physician in Boston, held in great esteem. There are' many living who 
remember his son Edward. 

TT Harvard College, 1800. ** Harvard College, 1S02. 



27 



1787, May 1. Thomas English * 

Oct. 29. Bartholomy de Gregoire,t and Maria Theresa his 
wife. Their childi'en, — Pierre de Gregoire, Ni- 
cholas de Gregoire, Maria de Gregoire. 
Nov. 16. Alexander Moore, Boston, merchant. 

Isaac Smith, „ clerk. 

John Deverell, „ silversmith. , 

John Gregory, „ merchant. 

David Poignand, „ merchant, and Delicia his 
wife. 

Abraham Bazin, „ merchant. 

Henry Smith, „ merchant, and Elizabeth, 

his wife. Henry Lloyd Smith, Elizabeth, Cathe- 
rina, Rebecca, and Anna Smith. 

Benjamin Pickman, Esq., Salem. 

William Pratt,J Boston, merchant, from London. 

"Kirk Boot,| „ „ „ „ 

Mary, his wife ; Frances, their daughter. 

1788, June 19. "William Menzies Douglass, late of Great Britain. 

Paul Crocker, and Lydia his wife. Their grand-chil- 
dren, — Joanna Crocker Chute, Paul Crocker 
Chute, George Washington Chute, Lunenburg, 
late of Annapolis, in Nova Scotia. 

* A merchant, No. 11, Long Wharf. — Boston Directory, 1789. He was the father 
of James L. English, Esq., of Boston. 

t Madame Gregoire came to America with a letter of introduction from Lafayette 
to General Knox, dated Paris, Aug. 1, 1786. "I thought," says the marquis, "my 
best way was to introduce her to you, who can, better than any one else, advise her 
how to act, and give her accounts of the frontier, where she says she has some 
property." 

This lady was a grand-daughter of Mons. La Motte Cadillac, to whom the King of 
France granted a patent of the Island of Mount Desert in 1691. Under this patent, 
Madam Gregoire claimed the island. "It would seem," says Williamson (History of 
^Maine, vol. ii. p. 515), " to have been a claim too antiquated and obsolete to be re- 
garded : but the government was so highly disposed at this time ' to cultivate mutual 
confidence and union between the subjects of his most Christian majesty and the 
citizens of this State,' that the General Court were induced first to naturalize the peti- 
tioners and their family, and then quit-claim to them all the interest the Commonwealth 
had to the island; reserving only, to actual settlers, lots of one hundred acres." 

The whole island had been confiscated, in the Revolution, as the property of Gov- 
ernor Bernard; but, as his son John had been a consistent Whig throughout the war, 
the Commonwealth restored to him one-half of it. — Ibid. 

X Messrs. Pratt and Boot, from moderate beginnings, became extensively engaged 
in mercantile business. 



28 



1788, June 19. Franfois Bertodi, of the kingdom of Prussia.* 

Nov. 21. Eliaha Bourn, Sandwich, late subject of Great Britain. 

Seth Perry, „ „ „ „ „ „ ' 

Edward Bourn, „ „ „ „ „ „ 

Richard Devereux, Parsonfield, late of Ireland. 

William Jolly, Portland, late of St. Pierre, Martinico. 

Jeremiah Joakim Khaler, Boston, late subject of Den- 
mark. 

Phillip Theobald, Pownalborough, from Hesse Han- 
nau. 

John de Polerisky, „ late of Molsheim, 

in Alsatia, France. 

1789, Feb. 14. James Huyman,t Boston, late of Rotterdam. 

James Henry Laugier de Tassy, Boston, late of the 

Seven United Provinces. 
Samuel Weston, Boston, late of the Island of Madeira. 
John Hicks, and Fanny Hicks his daughter, Boston. 
Frederick William Geyer, Boston. 
Charles Vaughan, Hallowell. 
William Davis, Windsor, Berkshire, late of Great 

Britain. 
James Scobie, Marblehead, late of Scotland. 
Daniel Wright, and Katy his wife, Salem, late of 

Great Britain. 
Nathaniel Chandler, Petersham. 
June 22. Nathaniel Skinner,J Boston, late of London. 
James Scott,§ Boston, native of Great Britain. 
James Scott, jun., „ „ „ „ „ 

George Shinnits, „ „ „ Prussia. 

Martin Coning, „ late of Amsterdam. 
Akurs Sisson, Dartmouth. 

1790, Mar. 1. John Jarvis. 

Lewis Leprilete.|| 
John Fowler. 



* In the Act of naturalization, Dr. Bertodi is called of "Persia;" a typographical 
error for "Prussia." He -left a son, who, I believe, is the sole representative of the 
name in this country. 

t Merchant, Foster's Wharf. — Boston Directory, 1789. 

X He was a merchant. § The second husband of Madam Hancock. 

II Dr. Leprilete resided at Jamaica Plain. 



29 



1790, Mar, 1. Alexander McDonald. 

William Welch.* 

Peter Le Mercier, and his children, — Polly Eugenia, 

Sophia Cecile, and Peter Oliver Le Mercier.f 
Thomas Lane. 
William Cleland.j 

John Pennell. ' 

John Bond. 
Mar. 6. John Montgomery. 
James Green. 
Nathan Kelley. 
Stephen Jones. 
Thomas Ramsden. 
John Sockman. 

1791, Mar. IL John White. 

Roger Dickinson. 

John Atkinson, and Elizabeth his wife. " His " chil- 
dren, — John Atkinson, jun., Charles Atkinson, 
Eliza Storer Atkinson, George Hodgson Atkinson, 
Mary Ann Atkinson, Caroline Frances Atkinson, 
and William Atkinson. 

1793, Mar. 9. George William Erving.§ 
Sept. 28. Pierre Briamant, Boston. 

1794, Feb. 27. Henry Huetson Pentland. 
June 24. Thomas Neil.|| 

Robert Getty.|| 
Robert Holt. 

* Father of the late John Welch, Esq. 

t Thus the names stand in the Act of naturalization. But their names, I suppose, 
are more correctly given in the record of their guardianship, in Suffolk, in March, 1802; 
viz., " Eugene Sophia, Cecile Charlotte, and Peter Olivier Lemercier." They were 
then placed under the guardianship of Earl Sturtevant. Eugene and Cecile were over 
fourteen years of age, and Peter Olivier under fourteen. The father, perhaps a grand- 
son of the minister, is entitled " Peter Lemercier, late of France, deceased." 

In March, 1828, Eugene Sophia, "widow of George C. Flynn;" Cecile Charlotte, 
" wife of Henry Williams, of Boston;" and Peter Olivier Lemercier, — discharged the 
bond of guardianship. Williams was well known as a portrait painter. 

J A broker in Boston. 

§ He was educated at Oxford. He was consul at London, and afterwards was 
appointed ambassador to Spain by Mr. Jefferson. 

II Traders in Boston. 



30 



The Legislature passed a law, June 9, 1792, allowing all 
persons, proscribed under any of the laws of the State, to be 
naturalized in the same manner and on the same conditions 
as provided for other aliens by the Act of Congress " esta- 
blishing an uniform rule of naturalization," 1790, chap. 3. 

It will be observed by the foregoing list that the Legislature 
of Massachusetts continued to naturalize "aliens" as late as the 
June Session in the year 1794, — more than four years after 
Congress had made provision for naturalization, pursuant to 
the power contained in the Constitution of the United States. 
This may have been because the Legislature did not consider 
the power to be exclusive in Congress ; * or because there 
may have been a question, whether the statute of 1790 was 
prospective, — the provision being, " that any alien, being a 
free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and 
under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of 
two years," &c. The next statute, 1795, chap. 20, was pro- 
spective as well as retrospective ; and, after its passage, Mas- 
sachusetts ceased from all further exercise of jurisdiction. 



* Indeed, so late as 1817, in the Supreme Court of the United States, counsel, in 
arguing a question in relation to the Maryland law of naturalization, 1780, intimated 
" that the respective States still preserve the right of making naturalization, giving 
certain civil rights to foreigners, without conferring political citizenship." Chirac vs. 
Chirac. — Wheaton's Reports, vol. ii. p. 264. The court, however, held that .the ex- 
clusive power of Congress was' incontrovertible. 






















^^^C,^' 








•^^^.-^^ oV^^^^u^'-:. ''^^^'^ :^^^*' '*bv*' :^ 








"^ 




<rv * 







f)^ . t • 











^^^ V o: 




